JEGANNATHAN versus RAJU SIGAMANI & ANR.

A Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against an order of remand under Order 41 Rule 23A is maintainable under Order 43 Rule 1(u), but the appeal can only be heard on grounds permitted under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; the High Court erred in holding otherwise.

Parties: Appellant: Jegannathan; Respondent: Raju Sigamani; Respondent: Senthil Jagadeesan
Jurisdiction: India
Judgment Date: 02 April 2012
Procedural Posture: Civil Appeal / Appeal Against High Court Order Dismissing Civil Miscellaneous Appeal as Not Maintainable
Outcome: Appeals allowed
Legal Topics: Appeals, Order of Remand, Maintainability, Scope of Appeal, Permanent Injunction

Civil Procedure Appeals Order of Remand Maintainability Scope of Appeal Permanent Injunction

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2

Parties

Jegannathan

Appellant

Raju Sigamani

Respondent

Senthil Jagadeesan

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against High Court Order Dismissing Civil Miscellaneous Appeal as Not Maintainable

Legal Issues

1 Whether a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against an order of remand passed under Order 41 Rule 23A is maintainable under Order 43 Rule 1(u) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
2 Whether the constraints of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, apply to such appeal

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed

Orders

Impugned order of High Court set aside
C.M.A. No. 1227 of 2002 titled as Jagannathan and Others Vs. Raju Sigamani restored to file of Madras High Court, Madurai Bench for hearing and disposal in accordance with law